Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: kdthrge on 11 Sep 2006 17:19 Phil. wrote: > Retief wrote: > > On 7 Sep 2006 08:39:04 -0700, "Phil." <felton(a)princeton.edu> wrote: > > > > >It appears from subsequent posts that you are addressing this question > > >to me, for 'proof' that a molecule absorbs light and will not re-emit > > >it on a timescale that is short compared with the mean time between > > >collisions at STP, see any decent college level textbook on > > > > The emissions from individual molecules are based on probabilities, > > not absolutes (or ensemble rates). Some of the molecules _will_ > > re-emit photons before the next collision (regardless of what the > > ensemble _mean_lifetime_ shows -- the process is all part of the > > overall statistics). In general, the radiative lifetime of a state > > decreases, as the energy difference between that state and ground > > state goes up (and vice-versa). > > > > Indeed, which is why I said that the probability of a photon being > re-emitted is small when the radiative lifetime is long compared with > the mean time between collisions (such as is the case with CO2 at STP). > I did not say it was zero. Collisional deactivation by surrounding > molecules will be the predominant mode of energy exchange at STP. Phil , If you could please, go through your basic model of the earth's thermodynamics. At the distance the earth is from the sun, the energy of the sun's radiaiton is 1370 watts/sq m. The mean energy of the earth results in a rate of 459 watts/sq m radiation. This leaves 911 w/M-2. which is reflected or absorbed and radiated back at high altitudes and is not incorporated into the mean tempeerture of the earth. An object in space at the same distance from the sun (that like a blackbody absorbed all radiation without reflection), would absorb and radiate at this rate of 1370 w/m and would have the temperature of ..394k 121C 218F This would be the mean temperature of the earth without an atmosphere since in time, the radiation field within the earth would reach this equilibrium. The sun radiates about half it's energy in visible light. The other half of it's energy is in the thermal and ultraviolet. .. Most all of the ultraviolet radiation is absorbed by the stratosphere.The temperature in the stratosphere is warmer at higher altitudes due to the absorption of ultraviolet. Top of troposhere/beginning of stratosphere is about -52 celsius, top of stratosphere is -3 C. .Heat in this region travels by radiation and conduction, not by convection due to the thermal inversion The thermal frequencies of the sun are also absorbed at some point by the atmosphere or earth. This is a considerable amount of energy to neglect entirely. .. The numbers I've seen you come up with entirely neglect the radiation of the ultraviolets and thermals. This is a considerable amount of energy 685 w/ sq m You guys ignore it with shake of your head. And then describe the equilibrium of the earth's temperature to be based upon particular "grenhouse" gases. With this model you wish to socialize our economy. You must be able to justify your theoretics. Your model of the temperature being pushed up by these particular greenhouse gases, and that miniscule increase in "CO2 can in any way affect the mean temperature of the earth is baloney. Kent Deatherage
From: Phil. on 12 Sep 2006 08:17 kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > Phil. wrote: > > Retief wrote: > > > On 7 Sep 2006 08:39:04 -0700, "Phil." <felton(a)princeton.edu> wrote: > > > > > > >It appears from subsequent posts that you are addressing this question > > > >to me, for 'proof' that a molecule absorbs light and will not re-emit > > > >it on a timescale that is short compared with the mean time between > > > >collisions at STP, see any decent college level textbook on > > > > > > The emissions from individual molecules are based on probabilities, > > > not absolutes (or ensemble rates). Some of the molecules _will_ > > > re-emit photons before the next collision (regardless of what the > > > ensemble _mean_lifetime_ shows -- the process is all part of the > > > overall statistics). In general, the radiative lifetime of a state > > > decreases, as the energy difference between that state and ground > > > state goes up (and vice-versa). > > > > > > > Indeed, which is why I said that the probability of a photon being > > re-emitted is small when the radiative lifetime is long compared with > > the mean time between collisions (such as is the case with CO2 at STP). > > I did not say it was zero. Collisional deactivation by surrounding > > molecules will be the predominant mode of energy exchange at STP. > > Phil , > If you could please, go through your basic model of the earth's > thermodynamics. Delighted to do so. > At the distance the earth is from the sun, the energy > of the sun's radiaiton is 1370 watts/sq m. You're OK up to here but everything that follows is wrong, due apparently to your being a fully paid up member of the Flat Earth Society! The rest of us know that the Earth is spherical, and therefore the solar energy incident on the surface is ~342 W/m^2 (all numbers quoted are / unit surface area). The earth's albedo is about 30% so 107 W/m^2 is reflected out to space leaving 168 W/m^2 absorbed by the surface and 65 W/m^2 absorbed by the atmosphere. The surface radiates back 350 W/m^2 and thermals contribute 24 W/m^2 and latent heat 75 W/m^2, 40 W/m^2 of the IR makes it directly into space. The atmosphere and clouds radiate back 324 W/m^2 to the surface leaving 195 W/m^2 emitted out to space from the upper atmosphere. You will see that this gives a balance 168+67 = 195+40. > The mean energy of the earth > results in a rate of 459 watts/sq m radiation. This leaves 911 w/M-2. > which is reflected or absorbed and radiated back at high altitudes and > is not incorporated into the mean tempeerture of the earth. > An object in space at the same distance from the sun (that like a > blackbody absorbed all radiation without reflection), would absorb and > radiate at this rate of 1370 w/m and would have the temperature of > .394k 121C 218F This would be the mean temperature of the earth without > an atmosphere since in time, the radiation field within the earth would > reach this equilibrium. > The sun radiates about half it's energy in visible light. The other > half of it's energy is in the thermal and ultraviolet. > . > > Most all of the ultraviolet radiation is absorbed by the > stratosphere.The temperature in the stratosphere is warmer at higher > altitudes due to the absorption of ultraviolet. Top of > troposhere/beginning of stratosphere is about -52 celsius, top of > stratosphere is -3 C. .Heat in this region travels by radiation and > conduction, not by convection due to the thermal inversion The thermal > frequencies of the sun are also absorbed at some point by the > atmosphere or earth. This is a considerable amount of energy to neglect > entirely. > . > The numbers I've seen you come up with entirely neglect the radiation > of the ultraviolets and thermals. This is a considerable amount of > energy 685 w/ sq m You guys ignore it with shake of your head. And > then describe the equilibrium of the earth's temperature to be based > upon particular "grenhouse" gases. With this model you wish to > socialize our economy. You must be able to justify your theoretics. > Your model of the temperature being pushed up by these particular > greenhouse gases, and that miniscule increase in "CO2 can in any way > affect the mean temperature of the earth is baloney. > All addressed above!
From: Lloyd Parker on 12 Sep 2006 04:55 In article <1158009579.820044.205620(a)q16g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >Phil. wrote: >> Retief wrote: >> > On 7 Sep 2006 08:39:04 -0700, "Phil." <felton(a)princeton.edu> wrote: >> > >> > >It appears from subsequent posts that you are addressing this question >> > >to me, for 'proof' that a molecule absorbs light and will not re-emit >> > >it on a timescale that is short compared with the mean time between >> > >collisions at STP, see any decent college level textbook on >> > >> > The emissions from individual molecules are based on probabilities, >> > not absolutes (or ensemble rates). Some of the molecules _will_ >> > re-emit photons before the next collision (regardless of what the >> > ensemble _mean_lifetime_ shows -- the process is all part of the >> > overall statistics). In general, the radiative lifetime of a state >> > decreases, as the energy difference between that state and ground >> > state goes up (and vice-versa). >> > >> >> Indeed, which is why I said that the probability of a photon being >> re-emitted is small when the radiative lifetime is long compared with >> the mean time between collisions (such as is the case with CO2 at STP). >> I did not say it was zero. Collisional deactivation by surrounding >> molecules will be the predominant mode of energy exchange at STP. > >Phil , >If you could please, go through your basic model of the earth's >thermodynamics. At the distance the earth is from the sun, the energy >of the sun's radiaiton is 1370 watts/sq m. The mean energy of the earth >results in a rate of 459 watts/sq m radiation. This leaves 911 w/M-2. >which is reflected or absorbed and radiated back at high altitudes and >is not incorporated into the mean tempeerture of the earth. > An object in space at the same distance from the sun (that like a >blackbody absorbed all radiation without reflection), would absorb and >radiate at this rate of 1370 w/m and would have the temperature of >..394k 121C 218F This would be the mean temperature of the earth without >an atmosphere since in time, the radiation field within the earth would >reach this equilibrium. >The sun radiates about half it's energy in visible light. The other >half of it's energy is in the thermal and ultraviolet. >.. > > Most all of the ultraviolet radiation is absorbed by the >stratosphere. Gee, all those sunburns are imaginary? (A lot of it is, but not all, and it depends upon wavelength.) >The temperature in the stratosphere is warmer at higher >altitudes due to the absorption of ultraviolet. Top of >troposhere/beginning of stratosphere is about -52 celsius, top of >stratosphere is -3 C. .Heat in this region travels by radiation and >conduction, not by convection due to the thermal inversion The thermal >frequencies of the sun are also absorbed at some point by the >atmosphere or earth. This is a considerable amount of energy to neglect >entirely. >.. >The numbers I've seen you come up with entirely neglect the radiation >of the ultraviolets and thermals. This is a considerable amount of >energy 685 w/ sq m You guys ignore it with shake of your head. And >then describe the equilibrium of the earth's temperature to be based >upon particular "grenhouse" gases. With this model you wish to >socialize our economy. You must be able to justify your theoretics. >Your model of the temperature being pushed up by these particular >greenhouse gases, and that miniscule increase in "CO2 can in any way >affect the mean temperature of the earth is baloney. > >Kent Deatherage >
From: Retief on 12 Sep 2006 23:40 On Mon, 11 Sep 06 11:24:41 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>And does that mention CO2? You do know CO2 and H2O are different, right? >> >>Now this is funny, Lloyd... You are such a card... What Lloyd is >>trying to claim that the general rules for optical absorption physics >>re grossly different for CO2 and H2O (and also that these molecules >>share no IR bands). > >Can you prove the CO2 absorption bands are saturated? I don't have to. You declared unequivocally and without reservation that the IR would escape into space without the CO2 (obviously, this was regardless of any other conditions). Since you didn't specify an IR band or wavelength, the reader is free to chose any band (for example a saturated one, or even one in which CO2 fails to interact). >>That is, according to Lloyd, even if ALL of the >>energy in a given IR band was completely absorbed by the CO2, if you >>double the CO2, you will still double the energy absorbed within that >>IR band... > >Even if pigs had wings... > >Can you prove "all the energy ... [is] completely absorbed by the CO2"? I don't have to. You declared unequivocally and without reservation that the IR would escape into space without the CO2 (i.e. regardless of any other conditions). Your claims often have the "universally true" character, which it invariably false. I can only assume that you make such claims in an attempt to mislead and decieve the reader. Retief
From: Phil. on 13 Sep 2006 01:38
Retief wrote: > On 11 Sep 2006 10:59:06 -0700, "Phil." <felton(a)princeton.edu> wrote: > > >> The emissions from individual molecules are based on probabilities, > >> not absolutes (or ensemble rates). Some of the molecules _will_ > >> re-emit photons before the next collision (regardless of what the > >> ensemble _mean_lifetime_ shows -- the process is all part of the > >> overall statistics). In general, the radiative lifetime of a state > >> decreases, as the energy difference between that state and ground > >> state goes up (and vice-versa). > > > >Indeed, which is why I said that the probability of a photon being > >re-emitted is small when the radiative lifetime is long compared with > >the mean time between collisions (such as is the case with CO2 at STP). > > I did not say it was zero. > > Fair enough. There is often confusion about transistions and decay > rates (and things like "forbidden transistions" seem to cause the most > confusion among newbies). > > >Collisional deactivation by surrounding > >molecules will be the predominant mode of energy exchange at STP. > > Until the energy has been sufficiently "spread around" (i.e. the > molecules approach the same level of excitation) throughout the > ensemble, then radiative process will take over as the primary > exchange mechanism. > Which it never does, you'll have a Boltzmann distribution where energy is being continuously being exchanged between molecules via collisions. |